TOPICAL REVIEW Neutrino-Nucleus Cross Sections for Oscillation Experiments Teppei Katori1 and Marco Martini2;3 1School of Physics and Astronomy, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK 2ESNT, CEA, IRFU, Service de Physique Nucleaire,´ Universite´ de Paris-Saclay, F-91191 Gif-sur-Yvette, France 3Department of Physics and Astronomy, Ghent University, Proeftuinstraat 86, B-9000 Gent, Belgium E-mail: [email protected], [email protected] Abstract. Neutrino oscillations physics is entered in the precision era. In this context accelerator-based neutrino experiments need a reduction of systematic errors to the level of a few percent. Today one of the most important sources of systematic errors are neutrino- nucleus cross sections which in the hundreds-MeV to few-GeV energy region are known with a precision not exceeding 20%. In this article we review the present experimental and theoretical knowledge of the neutrino-nucleus interaction physics. After introducing neutrino oscillation physics and accelerator-based neutrino experiments, we overview general aspects of the neutrino-nucleus cross sections, both theoretical and experimental views. Then, we focus on these quantities in different reaction channels. We start with the quasielastic and quasielastic-like cross section, putting a special emphasis on multinucleon emission channel which attracted a lot of attention in the last few years. We review the main aspects of the different microscopic models for this channel by discussing analogies and differences among them. The discussion is always driven by a comparison with the experimental data. We then consider the one pion production channel where data-theory agreement remains very unsatisfactory. We describe how to interpret pion data, then we analyze in particular the puzzle related to the impossibility of theoretical models and Monte Carlo to simultaneously describe MiniBooNE and MINERvA experimental results. Inclusive cross sections are also discussed, as well as the comparison between the nm and ne cross sections, relevant for the CP violation experiments. The impact of the nuclear effects on the reconstruction of neutrino energy and on the determination of the neutrino oscillation parameters is reviewed. A window to the future is finally opened by discussing projects and efforts in future detectors, beams, and analysis. Submitted to: J. Phys. G: Nucl. Phys. arXiv:1611.07770v1 [hep-ph] 23 Nov 2016 Contents 1 Introduction 3 1.1 Neutrino oscillation physics . .4 1.2 Accelerator-based neutrino experiments . .7 1.3 Neutrino fluxes . 11 2 Neutrino cross section generalities 14 2.1 Theory . 14 2.2 Experiment . 21 2.3 Matching Theory and Experiment . 22 CONTENTS 2 3 Quasielastic 24 3.1 CCQE, CCQE-like, and CC0p ......................... 24 3.2 np-nh excitations: theory vs experimental ds ................. 28 3.2.1 MiniBooNE . 32 3.2.2 T2K . 37 3.2.3 MINERvA . 39 3.3 Hadron information . 42 3.3.1 one-track vs. two-track . 42 2 3.3.2 MINERvA d s ........................... 45 dEavail dq 3.3.3 ArgoNeuT . 46 3.3.4 Theoretical studies . 48 4 Pion production and inelastic channels 50 4.1 Charged current charged pion production . 50 4.1.1 Topology-based signal definition . 52 4.1.2 Directly observable variables . 53 4.1.3 Flux-integrated cross section . 54 4.2 Charged current neutral pion production . 55 4.3 MiniBooNE-MINERvA data comparison . 57 4.3.1 Normalization of theory . 57 4.3.2 Normalization of data . 59 4.4 Neutral current neutral pion production . 60 4.5 Toward the solution of the pion puzzle . 60 4.6 Kaon and strangeness production . 63 4.7 Coherent pion productions . 64 5 Charged current inclusive cross sections 65 5.1 nm CC inclusive . 65 5.2 ne cross sections . 68 5.3 ne vs nm cross sections . 71 6 Neutrino energy recostruction and neutrino oscillation analysis 71 7 Future experiments 77 7.1 Detectors . 77 7.1.1 Liquid Argon Time Projection Chamber (LArTPC) . 77 7.1.2 Water Cherenkov detector . 78 7.2 Higher precision hadron information . 79 7.3 Highly controlled neutrino beam . 82 7.4 Near future neutrino experiments . 84 8 Conclusions 84 CONTENTS 3 1. Introduction Neutrino oscillation physics is one of the most flourishing fields in particle physics. The visibility of the active community is further increased by the the 2015 Nobel Prize and the 2016 Breakthrough Prize in Fundamental Physics both given to neutrino oscillations [1–6]. After the discovery of the neutrino oscillations from the atmospheric neutrinos and solar neutrinos, neutrino oscillations have been further studied in the long baseline accelerator and reactor experiments. Neutrino masses and mixing, a first evidence of a new particle physics beyond the Standard Model (SM), are now well-accommodated in the standard framework of three-neutrino mixing, the so called “Neutrino Standard Model (nSM)”, where the three active neutrinos ne, nm , nt are super-positions of three massive neutrinos n1, n2, n3 with respective 2 masses m1, m2, m3. With the high precision measurement of the small parameter sin 2q13 [5– 8] we can affirm that neutrino physics is definitely entered the precision era. Beyond a better and better determination of the five known oscillation parameters (two squared-mass differences and three mixing angles) the determination of two unknown parameters, the Dirac CP-violating phase and the neutrino mass ordering (NMO) is motivating the present and future neutrino oscillation experiments. In parallel oscillation experiments aiming at the investigation of the existence of additional massive neutrinos (the sterile neutrinos) are also pursued. In the present review article we focus on accelerator-based neutrino experiments which, in the precision era, needs a reduction of systematic errors to the level of a few percent. These experiments measure the rate of neutrino interactions, which is the convolution of three factors: the neutrino flux, the interaction cross section and the detector efficiency. Here we discuss all three aspects but we pay particular attention to the neutrino-nucleus cross sections which in the hundreds-MeV to few-GeV energy region are one of the most important sources of systematic errors, being known with a precision not exceeding 20%. Although a majority of interaction systematic errors can be canceled by the internal measurement of oscillation experiments mainly by the near detectors, without improving the interaction models the limitations of internal constrains remain. After an introduction on neutrino oscillation physics and accelerator-based experiments in Section 1, we discuss in Section 2 some general theoretical and experimental aspects of the neutrino cross sections on nuclei since the detectors of modern neutrino experiments are composed of complex nuclei (12C, 16O, 40Ar, 56Fe...) which are more than a simple assembly of protons and neutrons. In accelerator-based experiments the neutrino beams (at difference with respect to electron beams, for example) are not monochromatic but they span a wide range of energies. Several reaction channels can be open and the incomplete lepton kinematic information prevents to compare theories with data in the same way as in the electron scattering. At this moment, the flux-integrated differential cross sections are the golden observables for the theory-experiment comparisons in neutrino scattering. We focus on these quantities in different reaction channels. We start, in Section 3 with the quasielastic (QE) and quasielastic-like cross section, putting a special emphasis on multinucleon emission channel which attracted a lot of attention in the last few years, after the suggestion [9, 10] of the inclusion of this channel as possible explanation of the MiniBooNE quasielastic cross section on carbon with unexpectedly large normalization [11, 12]. Several theoretical calculations agree today on its crucial role to reproduce MiniBooNE, as well as more recent MINERvA and T2K data. However important quantitative differences remain between the calculations. These differences largely contribute to the systematic error of the neutrino experiments, depending on the way the multinucleon emission channel is inserted in the Monte Carlo generators used for the neutrino experiments. This channel was totally CONTENTS 4 ignored in the generators, and the effort to include these contributions in several Monte Carlo simulations started after 2010 and it is far from conclusion. A treatment of the multinucleon emission channel (related to nucleon-nucleon correlations and meson exchange current contributions) without approximations is particularly difficult and computationally very demanding. Therefore different approximations are employed by the different theoretical approaches and by the Monte Carlo implementations. We review the main aspects of the different microscopic models by discussing analogies and differences among them. The discussion is always driven by a comparison with data (MiniBooNE, T2K, MINERvA, ArgoNeuT) and often respects the chronological order of the theoretical and experimental results, which allows, in our opinion, to better follow the rapid evolution of the field. The single pion production is the largest misidentified background for both nm - disappearance and ne-appearance experiments. However, data-theory agreement remains very unsatisfactory. In particular there is no model which describes MiniBooNE and MINERvA simultaneously, the so called “pion puzzle”. In Section 4, we introduce pion data and describe their interpretations. The complications of pion data analyses lay not only on their primary production models, but also on the fact that all hadronic processes have to be modeled correctly. Combination of data from different channels and different experiments hope to entangle and constrain all processes, however, such an approach has been started very recent and currently we are still struggling against pion puzzle. Inclusive cross sections are the subject of Section 5 where not only the nm scattering case, but also the ne one is presented. The nm vs ne comparison, relevant for the CP violation experiments is also discussed. Since the neutrino beams are not monochromatic but wide-band, the incoming neutrino energy is reconstructed from the final states of the reaction.